1 (MAC No. 181 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:38142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 181 of 2022 1 - Branch Manager(Iffco Tokio) General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office , Narmada Road, Near Mittal Gas, Jabalpur Madhaya Pradesh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Dashri Bai W/o Chetan Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village And Post Kasekera, Police Station Komakhan , Tahsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chetan Yadav S/o Pilaram Yadav Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post Kasekera, Police Station Komakhan , Tahsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bed Ram Yadav S/o Bisahu Ram Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kosmarra (Dhaurabhata) , Police Station Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahra , District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle) 4 - Kejuram Yadav S/o Bisahu Ram Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kosmarra (Dhaurabhata), Police Station Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahra , District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant :- Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 :- Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent Nos.3 & 4 :- None. ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.08.05 10:47:24 +0530 2 (MAC No. 181 of 2022) SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 01.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against impugned award dated 17.11.2021, passed by learned III Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, by which the claim application filed by the claimants has been allowed and compensation amount of Rs. 9,26,800/- along with 6% interest from the date of claim application has been granted to the claimants for death of their son namely, Khogesh Yadav and in which the claimants have also filed cross-objection for enhancement of the award of compensation. 2. Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company would raise solitary contention that the offending vehicle, which was being driven by Bed Ram Yadav is owned by Kejuram Yadav and insured by the appellant-insurance company, has been falsely implanted in the incident, whereas it was not involved in the accident as the vehicle was seized after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 days, which casts serious doubt on its involvement in the accident and, therefore, the 3 (MAC No. 181 of 2022) insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 3. Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents No.1 & 2 would support the impugned award and submit that the plea with regard to false implantation has not been specifically raised by the appellant-insurance company and also no evidence has been led in this regard therefore, this appeal is liable to dismissed. He would further submit that the amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced as the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on the lower side. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. It is the case of the appellant-insurance company as pleaded in the written statement that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and it was falsely implanted in the incident at a later stage in order to fabricate the claim and that the deceased – Khogesh Yadav died due to his own negligence. As such, no specific plea of false implantation has been taken by the appellant- insurance company. Furthermore, no evidence has been 4 (MAC No. 181 of 2022) led on behalf of the appellant-insurance company to establish the plea with regard to false implantation and merely because the offending vehicle was seized after a delay of around two weeks, it cannot be held that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. As such, the appeal of the insurance company deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed as no other point has been raised. 6. Now, it is the case of the claimants that at the time of incident, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the minimum income of the deceased, who was an unskilled labour, is to be taken as Rs.8060/-, which is taken here as Rs.8000/- per month i.e. Rs.96,000/- per annum. It is also the case of the claimants that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation under the other heads also. 7. In view of the above submission made by the claimants, this Court is computing the compensation as below :- Heads Tribunal New Calculation Income as per minimum wages. Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Per Annum Rs. 8,000 x 12 = Rs. 96,000/- Per Annum Deduction 1/2 = Rs.36,000/- Per Annum 1/2 = Rs. 48,000/- Per Annum 5 (MAC No. 181 of 2022) Future prospects 40% of Rs.36,000/- is Rs.14,400 and total comes to Rs.50,400/- 40% of Rs.48,000/- is Rs.19,200/- and total comes to Rs.67,200/- Multiplier Loss of dependency 17 x 50,400 = Rs.8,56,800/- 17 x 67,200/- = 11,42,400/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of Consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.80,000/- Total Rs.9,26,800/- Rs. 12,52,400/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,26,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,52,400/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,26,800/-, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,25,600/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 16.05.2019 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of appellant/insurance company is dismissed, however, the cross-appeal filed by the claimants 6 (MAC No. 181 of 2022) under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed to the above extent. The concerned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhanced amount of compensation. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) @d!t! Judge